Ordered,
	That there be laid before this House a Return of the Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of a review under section 12 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.— [Kevin Brennan.]

Point of Order

David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will be some surprise, I am sure, that the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill is not to be debated today. It was due to be the second item, as you know. There is a feeling that it has been withdrawn. Will you confirm that the Bill has not been withdrawn, and that it has been deferred to 18 May? Many of us believe that that is just a ploy to bring the troops in on 18 May so that there will be more than 100 Members present to try and pass the private Member's Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean). Those of us who are opposed and consider that it would be a disgrace if the Bill were passed will be here on 18 May.

John Butterfill: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The consideration in Committee was not particularly long, but it was comprehensive. The Bill was altered quite substantially, not in its objectives, which remain the same, but in the legal basis of the clauses. The Bill was an extremely complex matter. It meant changing a large number of existing areas of legislation, and the way in which they interacted was complex, hence the comprehensive redrafting of the Bill since Second Reading, and also its change in name to the Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill. That was needed to bring greater clarity to what the Bill was intended to achieve.
	I pay tribute the work of all who were involved in the Committee stage, in particular to the groups of lawyers who worked hard together to come to a conclusion. Without the diligent efforts of the Treasury solicitors, that would not have been possible.
	There is one remaining area of the Bill that we were unable to cover in Committee: the position of mutual insurers. It was felt that the Bill as drafted could contravene European Union company law. The remedy that was chosen to enable the Bill to proceed quickly was to remove mutual insurers from the transfer arrangements that apply to all the other mutual societies. That is not a particularly happy situation, and—the Minister confirmed this in Committee—both sides of the House would prefer them to be included, if that is possible.
	I understand that the Royal London mutual instructed solicitors to consider how the situation could be remedied. It instructed Herbert Smith, which has come up with some ideas that are now being discussed with the Treasury solicitors. Between them, they may reach a conclusion that would enable mutual insurers to be included in the scope of the Bill. If the Bill is passed today, that can be achieved only by an amendment in another place, which would mean the Bill coming back here again. I would not be unhappy with that procedure, if I was sure that time would be made available to consider the amendments. I understand that there is a possibility that the Government might be prepared to assist in that matter, and no doubt the Minister will confirm or deny that information shortly.
	I thank everybody who has been concerned with the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I shall keep my remarks brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, conscious not only of your guidance to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) but of the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), is coming up next.
	First, may I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) on steering his Bill successfully through the rocky waters of financial mutuals to Third Reading? This is his fourth Bill to reach that stage, and I suspect that it will reach the statute book in due course. It is the product of a collaborative—co-operative, even—relationship with the Treasury, and I spoke to Mutuo last week about the support that it received from the Treasury in discussing some of those issues. I welcome the Treasury's support in ensuring that the Bill reached this stage. I read the report of Committee proceedings in  Hansard, as I was unable to participate on Wednesday. Sensible changes have been made to the Bill, and I welcome the way in which clause 1 in particular has been amended to clarify both the procedure whereby applications can be made for increases in the amount of funding from wholesale markets and the process for granting approval. That is an important freedom for building societies that will enable them to respond more appropriately to the growing demands from consumers for good-value mortgage products.
	I wish to comment favourably on another change to the Bill. Opposition Members, particularly Front-Bench spokesmen, are often quick to criticise Government Ministers for evading further parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, so it would be churlish not to congratulate the Treasury on introducing the affirmative procedure in the Bill and ensuring that there will be debate on the regulations when they are drawn up. It is important, given the complexity of the issues that this—albeit short—Bill has raised, that there be further debate. I take on board my hon. Friend's comments about the fact that the amendments made in Committee exclude for the time being the mutual insurance company sector. While there are relatively few companies in that sector, they are important players, and I hope that time will be found, if a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, so that universal provision is put in place to ensure that mutuals in different categories can merge without losing their mutual status. It is in the interests of every financial mutual that that relationship exist across all such mutuals.
	I hope that the amendments to the Bill enable mutual societies to continue to flourish. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) referred to the West Bromwich building society. Having met its chairman and chief executive, I know the important role that that society plays in the community, and I hope that the Bill enables it and other financial mutuals to continue to go from strength to strength. Finally, may I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West on his success and the way in which he has steered the Bill to this stage?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Exactly. It is also important to note that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is not in favour of using electric shock devices to train dogs. There are numerous examples of dogs being trained in other ways to achieve the benefits that the hon. Lady has described.
	All animals, ourselves included, learn through experience. If an action brings a positive outcome it will be repeated, as it is beneficial. However, dogs also have a natural, in-built "fight or flight" response when put in a situation that causes pain or fear. As a dog will have no idea what has caused the pain, it is far more likely to associate it with something in its immediate environment than to connect it with its own behaviour at the time. That something could be an area, an object, another dog, the owner or even a child., and the dog could become afraid or even act aggressively as a result.
	Some people believe that it is okay if the collar is used only at a low current setting. The difficulty with that approach is that the shock level may be too low to influence behaviour, thus the owner would have to increase it. The problem is that the dog can become accustomed to the gradually increasing discomfort. Carolyn Menteith, who is a dog trainer affiliated to the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, has said:
	"An electric shock collar hurts. It has to. If it didn't, it wouldn't work."
	There are a number of models to choose from; there are a number of anti-bark shock collars, which emit an electric shock of about 6 V to 9 V every time that the dog tries to bark while wearing one. By way of comparison, I should say that a Black and Decker drill also requires a 6 V battery. For about £270, one can get a remote control shock collar, which delivers a shock of about 3 V to 9 V via an owner-operated remote control. Incidentally, some of those devices do not come with instructions unless one pays extra.
	I deliberately used the term "devices" in my Bill, because it is not just collars that are available now—other such remote control devices exist. Electric shocks leads are designed to stop a dog pulling on the lead; the level of shock increases in line with the amount of pressure that the dog puts on the lead. The most horrifying of all are electric shock mats, also known as wireless crates, which are designed to keep a dog in one place at home. They detect a dog's weight and emit electric shocks, via a collar, to the dog when it is within a 6 ft radius of the crate and until it returns. One can imagine the scenario involving a dog left unattended, possibly while the owner is at work. Should the owner misjudge the distance, the dog would be unable to go out to the toilet or to get to its food without receiving an electric shock.
	Those devices are readily available via mail order and over the internet—they often come with poor instruction manuals—to people who have little or no idea of how best to use them. A quick Google search pulls up devices that have: a range of 1 mile; four days' continuous use facility; an option for up to three dogs to be controlled individually from one handset, with a selection of 3 different modes; and a timer-controlled charging dock. Another website features a model that can deliver 16 levels of shock stimulation intensity. It makes one wonder to whom the devices are designed to appeal. Who needs the facility to zap three dogs from the same device?
	To return to the point that the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) was making, some of the best trained dogs, including assistance dogs, are not trained using electric shock training devices. The police and the armed forces have banned the use of electric dog collars for training, and the collars are also condemned by the German Shepherd Club, the Kennel Club and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
	As long ago as 2000, the Association of Chief Police Officers urged police forces not to use electronic shock collars after it had heard evidence from the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups. Furthermore, the armed forces dog unit has also prohibited the use of electric shock collars. If we can train dogs to a high enough calibre to be used in our police and armed forces without resorting to electric shock training, why should we need to use such devices on household pets?
	The primary purpose of any training programme should be to improve the relationship and communication between a dog and its owner through compassionate, reward-based training. The best way to have a well trained pet is by teaching one's dog to respond because it wants to respond, not because one has successfully managed to scare it half to death.
	I should like to quote from correspondence received by the Kennel Club from people who have had bad experiences with these devices. A gundog trainer from Worcestershire noted:
	"I had the misfortune to see a dog, which due to a fairly minor training problem, received the electric shock collar treatment, from a 'professional' gundog trainer. The shock treatment did not solve the problem and turned a reasonably biddable dog into an aggressive, non-compliant animal that is no longer able to obey any command...and distrusts most human beings".
	The owner of a bearded collie reported the following:
	"I know of two bearded collies (brothers) that lived happily together for more than three years. The owner had a problem with one who was a 'barker' and was advised to buy an electric shock anti-bark collar. However, when the dog received a shock, it turned on its mate, as it did not know where the shock had come from. On the third day his mate turned on him and a fight took place. The owner took the collar off but every time the dog which had worn the collar barked his mate turned on him and fights continued to occur".
	The collars can also have a damaging long-term effect on a dog's well-being, as has been documented in the August-September 2006 newsletter of the UK Leonberger Association.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I certainly do. The love that people have for their dogs comes through; genuine responsible dog owners are horrified by the thought that anyone would use these devices.
	I return to the newsletter of the UK Leonberger Association, which stated:
	"At a recent event one of the participants put an electric shock collar (anti-bark collar) on a dog to stop it barking. The dog screamed in agony and panic. As the collar was noise activated, the more she screamed, the more the collar administered shocks. Within a few days the dog had lost all the fur from her neck."
	My final case study is a very sad case that was reported in the Brighton Evening Argus a few years ago. A woman used an electric shock collar on her dogs, but the first time she did so it was by mistake when a small dog was walking past. For ever after, her dogs associated the shocks with small dogs and became afraid of them. One day when she was out with her dogs, an old lady walked past with a little shih tzu and her dogs became scared and attacked the little dog. It was taken to the vet but had to be put down. Her dogs had not shown aggressive behaviour before, and she was convinced that her dogs connected the pain of the electric shock with little dogs and that that had driven their uncharacteristic behaviour.
	I am aware that those case studies are anecdotal, but considerable scientific research has been done on this. During the passage of the Animal Welfare Bill, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would not consider a ban on electric shock collars, partly because it had not commissioned its own research and partly because of concerns regarding the validity of some of the existing research. When this was followed up, it transpired that just one particular study was causing concern, and on investigation, it was found that the concern was down only to how the research had been written up.
	The research was referred to Dr. Stephen Wickens from the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, who, after clarifying the research, was able to address these concerns. He then re-evaluted the findings and concluded:
	"I certainly feel a lot happier that the conclusions of Dr Schilder's paper are justified".
	Those conclusions stated:
	"Shocks received during training are not only unpleasant but also painful and frightening."
	I understand that DEFRA still believes that we require further research on this, but when a call went out last summer asking for universities to undertake this research, only one response was received. It could not be followed up, because it was a proposal for a study that would not have involved actually testing shock collars on dogs. On looking into the reasons for the poor response rate, it transpired that, in many cases, this type of study would not have got passed the given university's ethics committee because it considered there to be enough research to prove that electric shock collars were cruel.
	Rachel Casey and Emily Blackwell, who are both from the department of clinical veterinary science at the university of Bristol, have stated:
	"Given the wealth of peer reviewed research currently available on the physiological and behavioural effects of aversive stimuli, such as electrical shocks, on a range of different species, as well as the peer reviewed work done on dogs by Schilder et al, Beerda et al and Christiansen et al, we feel that there is a sufficiently robust scientific argument for the banning of the use of electronic shock collars in dog training.
	We would reiterate that we are unable to conduct a direct experimental study on the effects of shock collars on dogs, as such a study would not be viewed positively by the University ethics committee. In addition, such as study would require us to obtain a Home Office Licence, which is contrary to the ethos of the welfare charities that fund the majority of our research".
	Another call has recently gone out, and it has elicited one response. That has got past the ethics committee, because the research is being done on dogs that are already used to having these collars anyway. I am struggling to see how this research can be valid. These dogs may already be conditioned, so surely there would need to be a control group. But of course that would not get past the ethics committee, so we have a Catch-22 situation. Meanwhile, the devices continue to be available for sale. The time scale envisaged for that further research is also very long: it is at least two years, during which time I am concerned that we will see an exponential growth in the use of such devices in this country.
	Leaving all that aside, there is a precedent for banning a cruel and unnecessary practice on animals without needing extensive scientific research. I refer to tail docking, which the House voted to ban with no exemptions and for which there was far less scientific evidence to support such a ban than is available for shock collars.
	We have another precedent in that both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament propose to start consultation later this year on banning electric shock training devices, without needing any further scientific research. The Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, said in response to a recent parliamentary question that the Executive favoured banning the collars in principle and would launch a consultation on that later this year. The Minister for Environment, Planning and the Countryside in the Welsh Assembly, Carwyn Jones, announced in December last year that he intends to introduce legislation to ban electric dog collars and associated restraints.
	I know that my Government are committed to animal welfare, and I am sure that the Minister does not want to inflict unnecessary pain on dogs. I understand the need for a sound evidence base, but I hope that he will take on board my arguments against the need for further research and heed the example set by our devolved institutions. I know that there is little chance that the Bill will succeed, but I ask him to undertake to follow Scotland and Wales and to start a consultation process with a view to bringing in secondary legislation under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to ban those cruel and unnecessary devices.

Norman Baker: I am happy to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall be rather briefer than I was at this stage last week. It is a peculiarity of this place that I came prepared to make speeches on two Bills—the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean)—and have ended up making a speech on an entirely different Bill. However, I am happy to do so. I have been reinstated on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench temporarily for that purpose.
	I give my support and that of my party to the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) on her success in the ballot. There is no doubt that this matter needs to be dealt with. It is disappointing that it was not dealt with in the otherwise helpful and Animal Welfare Bill, which displayed foresight, which is now law. During the discussions on it, I represented my party, and I served on the Committee with the Minister who is present.
	I wrote to the Minister on 27 July 2005 following representations that I had received about electric shock collars:
	"The use of electric shock collars to train dogs is a very unpleasant and unnecessary practice. On top of causing stress to the dog through an unpleasant stimulus, I suspect that it does not build up the sort of trainer-dog relationship of trust that is desirable.
	Electric shock collars train dogs to respond out of fear of further punishment rather than a natural willingness to obey. Both myself and the Kennel Club believe that positive behaviour by dogs is best encouraged by the use of positive training methods. Furthermore, it is of great concern that these devices are readily available to anybody, regardless of their experience in training dogs. This then increases the scope for their misuse, either through ignorance by owners untrained to use them, or through malice by those intent on deliberate cruelty."
	I also expressed concern and disappointment that the Animal Welfare Bill, as it then was, did not outlaw the use of electric shock collars. I can tell the hon. Lady that I, and others, raised that during the Committee stage.
	The Minister cares about these issues. I have no doubt about that. He demonstrated that in Committee, so it is disappointing that the issue has had to take the private Member's Bill route to be raised again. I hope that when he responds he will say that on reflection, having considered the matter and seen the strong views expressed across the House—Members from three parties so far have supported the measure—he will be inclined to give the Bill a fair wind. After all, the Government gave a fair wind to a Bill to exempt MPs from expenses. Surely they can give a fair wind to a Bill to stop torture and pain caused by humans to animals.
	How do shock collars work? Only by inflicting pain on animals, causing them distress and such a traumatic experience that they will avoid a particular form of behaviour in future. If they did not cause pain and trauma, they would not work. By definition, the shock collars have that effect on the animals.
	In this day and age we should be finding more humane ways of training dogs. More humane ways exist, as the hon. Lady clearly set out. Some people say that there are people who can use shock collars responsibly, but that fails to take into account the fact that many people will buy those collars without proper training and use them irresponsibly. However we look at this matter, the Bill has highlighted an issue that deserves the support of the House.

Sadiq Khan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and to speak in support of the Bill introduced by my friend and hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry). She ended her excellent contribution by saying that she doubted whether her Bill would have success. Even if it does not, the points that she raised may come back in another form of legislation that the House will approve. It is important that the points that she raised be given a proper airing.
	May I say, by way of introduction and in case there is an intervention to ask this question, that I do not own a dog? I never have.

Sadiq Khan: I suspect that that is so. We all know that children imitate the behaviour of adults. If they see someone whom they love—their mother, father, uncle, auntie, grandmother or carer—using these devices on pets, what message does that send to them? It concerns me that adults—people in positions of influence, power and control—are using these devices on pets in the sight of their children.
	I know that animal welfare is a core and passionate belief of my hon. Friend the Minister, as was demonstrated by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is now law. We have a track record of which we can be really proud, and I am pleased that his Department is making sure that proper research is undertaken; we may well end up with legislation based on evidence, rather than simply on the anecdotal experiences described to us by experts and constituents. The issues being raised today are extremely important not just because they were first raised by constituents and experts, but because they demonstrate our commitment to the welfare of the huge number of pets that are owned in this country.
	The 2006 Act provides for the introduction of secondary legislation once proper research has been undertaken. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been listening thoughtfully to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North and the hon. Member for Lewes, and those made in the excellent interventions of other colleagues. It is really important that such research be undertaken as soon as possible, and that if the evidence shows the Minister—as we suspect it will—that electric shock training devices are an oxymoron, and cause much more harm than good, he will swiftly introduce secondary legislation to outlaw such collars.
	The Government have a good track record on animal welfare, and I know that they are committed to ensuring that all such legislation is evidence-based, and that they take seriously the recommendations and research of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The Companion Animal Welfare Council is very important advisory body that carries out independent studies of the use of training devices, and I am sure that it will help DEFRA to form policy, and that such studies will complement any separate research that DEFRA might commission. However, will my hon. Friend the Minister also examine overseas research, and consider the rationale behind the reasons why the countries that I mentioned earlier decided to ban electric shock training devices? It is worth looking at that evidence.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Lady makes an important point. There is clear evidence that when people torture and harm their children, it can lead to their children torturing and harming others when they become adults. We must also consider the important issue of the imitation of behaviour.
	The gratuitous abuse of animals is clearly to be abhorred, but we know that many dog and other pet owners do behave responsibly. A trial is taking place this week that has highlighted the issues that have been raised. One concern that colleagues have mentioned—it led to the 2006 Act, which comes into force this month—is the lack of prosecutions hitherto. That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Minister, who has an excellent track record on this issue, consolidated the 20 various pieces of such legislation reaching back to 1911. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it clear that to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal is unlawful. However, this legislation, which is now almost 100 years old, has not led, so far as I am aware, to any prosecutions of pet owners for the misuse of electric shock training devices. I am surprised not by the lack of prosecutions for their use, but by the lack of prosecutions for their misuse. I am pleased that the 2006 Act provides for the introduction, if necessary, of secondary legislation in England and Wales regulating equipment harmful to animal welfare. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to the points that have been made and will take them seriously.
	As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, Wales and Scotland are ahead of England in this area, as is often the case. Wales's Minister for Environment, Planning and the Countryside has said that he proposes to undertake a public consultation on banning the use of electric shock training collars for dogs in Wales, under the 2006 Act. The excellent Scottish Executive coalition, which will continue to exist after the elections on 3 May, will make an order banning these devices under the 2006 Act, which was enacted on 6 October last year. They are committed to undertaking a public consultation on banning the general use of certain types of electric shock collars.
	I am looking to my hon. Friend the Minister to give in his response the same commitment, and to show the same compassion. I want him to show that the welfare of dogs and other animals is at the heart of what DEFRA does, and to ensure that if this Bill does not reach the statute book—although I still live in hopes that it will—he will use the spirit and sentiment of it, taking into account the issues that have been raised today, to ensure that research on this issue is expedited. I hope that if those who carry out that research recommend a ban, he will come back to this place as soon as possible with secondary legislation to outlaw this outrageous behaviour.

Andrew Robathan: I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) had to say, and I agree with him entirely that any legislation on this matter should be based on scientific evidence. We are open to seeing what evidence the Minister might bring forward at a later stage. It is nice that a cat owner and a dog owner should agree, because traditionally they have somewhat differing views of life in general and of animal welfare in particular. However, I have a confession to make to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), whom I congratulate on introducing this Bill: I am not a dog owner, although I was until my dog was put down just before Christmas. She had had a good life, and I am afraid that it was necessary for her own welfare.
	I was particularly impressed by the hon. Lady's speech. She and I are on entirely common ground on the need for responsible dog ownership. On this issue, it is irresponsible dog ownership and the welfare of dogs that concern me more than anything else, which is why I believe that, to a certain extent, this Bill somewhat misses the mark. On Merseyside not so long ago, a child was killed by an irresponsibly owned dog, if I might put it that way. There was a not dissimilar incident in Leicester last summer when a child was savaged and I believe killed—it did not happen in my constituency—by two rottweilers that were guarding a pub. That concerns me much more than this issue.
	Electric shock training devices issue an electric shock to a dog's neck and are used for training and protection purposes. They have different strength settings, depending on the size of the dog. I would contend that there are occasions when the use of such devices is beneficial to an animal's welfare. The hon. Lady mentioned sheep worrying. I own and live on a farm, and sheep worrying is a real concern. Her arguments against using these devices in cases of sheep worrying were not necessarily scientifically based. Dogs may not mean to be malicious, but the sheep are worried by them and run away. A quick burst of electric shock will stop a dog chasing the sheep. Farmers can, rightly, shoot dogs to stop them worrying sheep, so if the device restrains a dog from doing so, or from running out on to a road, it can be argued to be beneficial to its welfare.
	The hon. Lady has exempted proximity fences from the Bill, although I would point out gently that that is illogical. Either it is cruel to give an animal an electric shock or it is not. If the dog does not realise that it is running up to sheep that causes the electric shock, why will it realise that it will get a shock from a fence? To answer that requires scientific experiment, instead of relying on our feelings about it.
	The point about electric shock devices is that they are not designed to be cruel. If animals suffer cruelty as the result of their use, it is the fault of the owner, rather than the device itself. We have discussed other methods of discipline. I am appalled by the way in which people ill-treat animals, both domestic and wild. Dogs are starved, flogged to within an inch of their lives or have burning items tied to their tails. One does not need an electric shock collar, which actually costs a lot of money, to ill-treat a dog. That is where the Bill misses the point slightly.
	Last year we had the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which already makes provision for acts of cruelty and unnecessary suffering. I was not on the Committee that considered the Bill, but I suspect that this issue was discussed. I further understand that the Minister has agreed to look into the matter and commission further scientific research, so the Bill may not be very timely. Section 4 of the Act states:
	"A person commits an offence if...an act of his...causes an animal to suffer".
	So the animal is already protected from unnecessary suffering, as is right and proper.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept, however, that if the devices were banned, there would be far fewer opportunities for their abuse or misuse?

Ben Bradshaw: Of course, but the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we should ban devices that many responsible dog owners—who love their animals no less than he and other Members love their dogs—have told me they find useful as a last resort. The use of such a device prevents their dog from causing accidents and distress to other people, and also stops the dog behaving in a way that could lead to far greater suffering for itself, because it could be shot by a farmer or injured by running in front of a car.
	I was given a couple of examples of such use by loving, decent, kind animal owners who live near my constituency, in the Devon countryside where, as the hon. Member for Blaby pointed out, there are many sheep. In one case, the problem was that the animal chased sheep, even though the owner had taken it to dog training classes and dog clubs. In the end a friend recommended that she try an electric shock collar. She used it only once, but the dog never again chased sheep. If she had not used the device, the likelihood was either that her dog would have been shot or that she would have had to have it put down.
	The second example is similar, but relates to perimeter fences—although I realise that the Bill has an exemption covering them. The loving owners of the dogs discovered that the only way they could prevent the dogs from escaping from the garden and chasing sheep was by erecting a perimeter fence. Such fences can be modified so that after one initial shock, a whistle sounds on subsequent occasions, which prevents the dog from running away. After installing the fence, those owners, too, never again had a problem with their dogs running away.
	We are keen to understand more, however, and to find out about practice in other countries. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North a few weeks ago, I undertook to ask the chief vet to write to her counterparts in every other EU member state, and we are starting to receive replies. The situation is quite patchy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting pointed out, one or two countries have banned the devices but the majority have not, although they regulate them. Like us, they have animal welfare legislation that prevents the misuse of such devices. We are still waiting for information, but so far the majority view in the EU seems to be that Governments have concluded that the best thing is to regulate the sale and use of the devices rather than to ban them.
	In New Zealand, which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North and I discussed when she came to see me, the devices are not banned, but their use is covered by a dog code. We shall continue to examine what other countries do and learn from their experience. When Governments are considering legislation, it is important that they consider best practice in other countries, and I have tried to introduce that principle in my Department since I became a Minister. We can often learn both from how other countries draw up legislation—so that we avoid making mistakes—and by adopting their good practice.
	My hon. Friend drew attention to the research that has been carried out in other countries, and we shall look at it. To respond to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, we recently set up the Companion Animal Welfare Council, which is the companion animal equivalent to the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has provided us with extremely valuable independent research on animal welfare issues. We have asked the Companion Animal Welfare Council to carry out an audit of research and practice in other countries and make a report. In addition, we are actively commissioning our own further research, which we hope to begin later this year and which could supply the evidence base for us to proceed down the secondary legislative route—as my hon. Friend would like us to do.
	I shall outline why we think secondary legislation is more appropriate than spending time in the Chamber passing primary legislation. The Animal Welfare Act is an enabling measure, as I repeatedly pointed out during its passage, not least in discussions with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Act is an umbrella piece of legislation, which guarantees for the first time that the welfare needs of animals must be met—its most advanced step forward. However, we have made it clear, before, during and since the passage of the measure, that most of the nitty gritty, such as electronic training devices or the other contentious issues discussed—circuses or the welfare of greyhounds, for example—would in time be dealt with through regulation and secondary legislation. There will be consultation on those issues and they will be discussed by Members in the House.
	To pick bits out of the Act and give them special primary legislative treatment would not be a sensible approach and could open the floodgates to every interest group. Different groups have more enthusiasm for certain elements of animal welfare. The hon. Member for Lewes will remember that in Committee I said that the Government were under great pressure to introduce secondary legislation quickly after the passage of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Some organisations are pushing us urgently to legislate on greyhounds, and others on circuses, pet fairs and so on.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North will accept that we are genuine when we say that primary legislation is not the appropriate route for bringing in a ban or restriction on electronic devices, but that we are committed to deal with the devices through secondary legislation, should the evidence emerge and should parliamentary and public consultation point to that route.
	There are one or two technical problems with the Bill. As my hon. Friend acknowledges, it exempts perimeter fences, but the advice from our lawyers is that it could catch other electronic devices such as ordinary electric fences at the margins of fields, to which the hon. Member for Blaby referred, as well as the electric goads used—for example, in slaughter houses—to prevent worse animal welfare problems, because the animal might hurt itself or thrash about in panic.
	I hope that my brief response has satisfied my hon. Friend that we are committed to further examination of the issue, because we need to listen not just to the animal welfare organisations that have been campaigning for a considerable time for a ban on the devices. I completely accept what she says about some of the new devices that are coming on to the market, particularly the so-called cat mats, or animal training mats. I am not aware that they are yet on sale in the UK, but if that were to be the case I should have strong concerns.
	Although I can understand the arguments made by some owners that electronic training devices are useful as a last resort to prevent animals from straying or worrying sheep, I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would require an electronic mat in their home that delivered a shock to a cat or any other animal that moved off it. That would seem to me to have absolutely no justification whatever. I am aware that Members are concerned about a number of other devices—citronella sprays, for example, which, although they do not deliver a shock, could be regarded as just as unpleasant in respect of the smell offence that they give to animals that have a far higher sense of smell than humans.
	We are committed to spending a considerable sum on further research. As far as possible, we want to base our decisions on good evidence and we will continue to examine the issue very closely. On the basis of what I have said, I am afraid that the Government cannot support the Bill.
	 Question put and negatived.

Wayne David: This is a small, but important, Bill. Some 25 years ago, I worked for the Workers' Educational Association, when one aspect of my job was to teach health and safety courses for the Trades Union Congress. I stressed then what I believe is still true today—that health and safety is in everyone's interest. It is obviously in the interest of the workers, but also of the employers. Good health and safety practices are in the interest of the profitability of firms and the safety of the people employed.
	That was back in 1974, but when I began to take an interest once again in health and safety, I was surprised by the fact that we have not seen any recent changes in the level of fines for health and safety offences. The most recent fines were introduced in 1991 and 1992 and since then there has been no change. That is why I agreed to put forward this small but important Bill.
	The Bill does three things to modify the framework of the maximum penalty set out in section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. First, it proposes to raise the maximum fine that may be imposed in the lower courts to £20,000 for most health and safety offences. At the moment, fines for some offences have a maximum of only £5,000. Secondly, it makes imprisonment an option for most health and safety offences in both the lower and higher courts. Thirdly, it is designed to make certain offences that are currently triable only in the lower courts triable in either the lower or the higher courts.

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very constructive and sensible intervention. There are a range of penalties available, including imprisonment in certain cases, which I shall come on to in a few moments. However, the important point about health and safety legislation in this country is not necessarily just that people who transgress the law will be fined a certain amount of money. More important, I would argue, is the principle of proportionality, so that we impose proportionate fines in accordance with particular offences. They must vary and be kept under constant review.
	Another important principle, however, is that of deterrence. Nobody wants to go through the process of increasing the number of health and safety trials. As things stand, we are talking about a relatively small number of cases being brought a year. In 2004-05, for example, there were 712 cases and a 95 per cent. prosecution of cases leading to convictions. Only a small number of cases are brought forward and I do not envisage an increase. The important thing, however, is to focus people's minds on the issue of health and safety—and on the element of deterrence, which is part of it. Focusing minds is entirely positive.
	To reinforce that line of argument, I would like to cite two important reviews of recent years. First, there was the Hampton review, "Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement". That review was extremely forceful in the arguments that it advanced, not just on the issue of fines, but on the matter of reducing administrative burdens, as its title implies. There was also the Macrory report entitled "Regulating Justice: Making Sanctions Effective". Those two reports strongly supported the line of argument set out today and embodied in the Bill. I would also stress the fact that the Bill is the result of joint consideration by the Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office. I believe that there is a consensus in favour of the changes that I am outlining today.
	Some of the most powerful arguments in favour of the Bill were put forward by judges when they made certain remarks in the process of sentencing—and I would like to quote some examples of that. For example, in 1995, a prosecution arose from the deaths of two students by carbon monoxide poisoning in the rented accommodation that they shared. The landlord was charged under section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulation 4(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984.
	After the jury returned guilty verdicts on each count, the judge asked the prosecution counsel if the matter had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of more serious charges, namely manslaughter. Counsel explained that the police had investigated and passed the papers to the CPS, which had decided not to press charges for manslaughter. The Health and Safety Executive had held the prosecution back until that had been decided.
	The judge fined the defendant on each count, and ordered him to pay prosecution costs. The defendant was given 12 months to pay with a warning that he faced two years imprisonment if he failed to do so. The judge opened his sentencing remarks by saying, significantly:
	"These offences do not carry imprisonment. If they did I wouldn't want you, nor the public, to be under any delusions that I would sentence you to prison and I would send you to prison for a substantial period of time."
	A year later, in 1996, there was a prosecution following a methane gas explosion underground at a coal mine. Two workmen were badly burnt. The mine manager was found guilty on five counts concerning management of the mine, ventilation and explosives use. The judge, in concluding, said that he was surprised, considering the seriousness of the offences, that fines were the only available penalty. The judge sought advice on the matter from the Health and Safety Executive through counsel before passing sentence.
	If I may, I will quote one further example in support of this aspect of the Bill. In 1996, again, the defendants—a company, one of its directors and a manager—were prosecuted for illegally employing young children to pack food products in a factory. All pleaded guilty. The company was convicted of seven charges of illegal child employment and fined. The director and manager were also fined and made to pay costs. The judge said in his concluding remarks:
	"These matters are so serious that I should consider imprisonment. But Parliament has given no such power to the courts to pass such a sentence."
	He also said:
	"Such abuse of young children is wholly unacceptable."
	Those are some examples of where imprisonment was, in the considered view of judges, something that should have been on the statute book.
	Another change that I propose to section 33 of the 1974 Act is a change in the level of fines available. In support of my proposals, I want to quote excerpts from the Hampton review report that explain the case clearly. The report stated:
	"In 2003-04, the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted 1,756 cases, with an average fine on conviction of £4,036 in magistrates' courts, and £33,036 in Crown Courts. The deterrent effect of such fines is likely to be low. For any company other than the smallest, a £5,000 fine is likely to be an insignificant sum."
	It went on to say:
	"Fines set at such low levels are no deterrent—indeed, a rational company in any of the cases highlighted"—
	a number of examples were quoted in the report—
	"would have been acting to its economic advantage by breaking the law. The elimination of gain from law-breaking is essential if businesses are to be allowed to operate on a level playing-field, but neither regulators nor businesses believe that appropriate fines will result from most prosecutions."
	That is an important and objective statement. The report went on to say:
	"The penalty regime should aim to have an effective deterrent effect on those contemplating illegal activity."

Robert Goodwill: Is it not the case that the majority of businesses in this country are small businesses? It would not surprise me if there was widespread ignorance of the levels of fines. If the fines were doubled, quadrupled or multiplied by 10 it would not have any impact on those companies that are not aware of the fines that they face if they breach the regulations.

Wayne David: That is a good way to put it. The 1974 Act is an extremely powerful and effective piece of legislation, but it might need to be fine-tuned and updated from time to time, to ensure that we have the appropriate fines in place to ensure the deterrent element. No extra costs, burdens or responsibilities whatsoever will be placed on employers.
	I hope that the House will agree to approach the Bill in a consensual manner, and that all parties will agree that the proposal is reasonable. It builds on the fine principles of the 1974 Act, reflects the good consensus on both sides of industry and would result in health and safety being taken more seriously and made still more effective.

Robert Goodwill: Yes, I accept that good employers and landlords already comply with the legislation. My concern is that, by and large, the level of the fines is not widely known. We all know that if we get caught speeding, we will get three points and a £60 fine, and we all know that if we get caught drink-driving, we will lose our licence for a year. Everyone is aware of those fines. The point that I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Caerphilly during his excellent opening speech was that there is no widespread knowledge of the level of the fines, so increasing the fines is unlikely to have much effect. Putting more effort into inspections might be the way to target bad employers and landlords.
	Would the Bill reduce serious infringements? I suspect not. What we need are deterrents, which include a good inspection regime and good trade unions in the workplace that are not frightened to draw problems to employers' attention. I am also concerned about how courts will interpret the reversal of the burden of proof. It is always said that we are innocent until proven guilty, but in cases in which we employers have to prove that we are doing everything that is reasonably practicable, the burden of proof is reversed. As I said in relation to the inspection of smoke detectors, how far should one go? What is reasonably practicable? That is a point on which the courts would have to rule, and not something that could be put in this reforming Bill. When I looked at the Bill, I was amazed at how wide the net can be cast. I was very surprised to read that the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot during an anti-terrorist operation, has been brought under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. That legislation not only applies to the workplace, but covers the issue of showing a duty of care.
	It is the big cases that hit the headlines that bring home to people how important it is to maintain high levels of health and safety. There have been big pay-outs in recent years. The engineering firm Balfour Beatty and Network Rail were fined £13.5 million for breaches of health and safety at Hatfield, where four people were killed in the year 2000. Many people in Scotland remember the Larkhall gas blast in 1999, in which a family of four died when a leaking pipe exploded, destroying their house in Larkhall, south Lanarkshire, a few days before Christmas. The blast was so powerful that their fridge was projected on to the roof of a neighbour's home, and the scene was likened to a war zone. After a 27-week trial, utility firm Transco was found guilty under health and safety legislation of failing to maintain the corroded and leaking gas main that ran through the family's garden. It was fined £15 million in August 2005, which at the time set a UK record for health and safety prosecutions. It is that type of case that brings home to people how important it is to comply with health and safety legislation, not the fact that someone was fined £4,000 instead of £2,000, or the fact that somebody's penalties were increased marginally.
	The Ladbroke Grove train crash on 5 October 1999, in which 31 people were killed when a Thames Trains commuter service smashed into a First Great Western train after going through a red light at Ladbroke Grove in west London, resulted in a £2 million fine for Thames Trains for two breaches of health and safety regulations. Six people died and seven were seriously injured when a steel pin holding together a passenger walkway came loose as hundreds of people were boarding the Prins Filip ferry from Ramsgate to Ostend. That resulted in a £1.7 million fine for two Swedish firms that admitted errors. The Port of Ramsgate, which managed the port, was fined £200,000, and Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which certified the walkway, was fined £500,000. That brings home to companies how important it is to comply with the legislation.
	I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate the Bill, but I think that this is the right place, but not the right time, to make such changes. I wonder why a private Member's Bill has had to be used to bring forward measures that should be in Government legislation. The measures need proper scrutiny in Government time. I hope that the Government will reflect on that, and will allow the measures the more intense scrutiny and the full procedures that accompany proper Government legislation, so that the measures can have a much better passage through the House.

Sadiq Khan: It is a privilege to speak in favour of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David). I do not know how he managed to swing it so that his Bill received a Second Reading on the day before workers' memorial day; he must have influence in some very high places. Today, I am speaking from my experiences as a trade unionist and as a solicitor who has acted for the victims of injury in the workplace and for their bereaved families. In fact, some of the cases to which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) referred were cases in which the firm that I co-founded acted on behalf of the bereaved families, or of those who had been injured.
	When one speaks to victims of incidents at work or their family members, one finds that what they are really after is not compensation, but justice. They want to ensure that no death or personal injury takes place again, and that we are not put in a situation in which we can say, "Oh my God, not again." That is the motivation for using the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and looking to the Health and Safety Executive to bring a prosecution.
	It is worth considering the micro impact—that on the individual—and the macro impact. The cost of work-related accidents and ill health to society has been estimated at between £11 billion and £18 billion—the equivalent of 2 to 3 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product. Those vast costs crudely suggest the waste of productivity and the scale of human suffering that stems from health and safety offences.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby asked why the Bill had to come from a Back Bencher. I remind him that we recently commemorated a measure that a Back Bencher introduced 200 years ago—it began the outlawing of slavery. I therefore have no problems with a Back Bencher promoting the Bill and I fully support my hon. Friend's measure.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman, who is the king of interventions, made a good intervention, as usual. I suspect that he did that because he promoted the Act to which he referred. I will not hold that against him. It is an example of why we should not criticise the Government for not thinking of the idea first.
	The Bill does not criticise the Health and Safety Executive or local authorities, which do all they can to bring successful health and safety prosecutions. The Bill is not about changing the requirements on business. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made several good points that are worth a response. He asked about the burdens on landlords, employers and businesses. The Bill would not add further burdens. He spoke of his concern about the reverse burden of proof, but the measure complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. If he believes that more money should be spent on having more HSE inspectors and on advertising and making people aware of sentences for breaches of health and safety, he can table an amendment to the Finance Bill next week to increase expenditure so that more money can be spent on those matters.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the long sentences that courts pass. It is worth bearing in mind that none of the sentences in the measure are mandatory. They simply give the judges further tools if they believe that a higher penalty should be imposed on somebody who breaks the law.
	The Bill has three clauses and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on making it so short. I am especially pleased with two aspects of it. First, it provides that magistrates courts and Crown courts can imprison people when appropriate for health and safety offences. Secondly, it provides that some cases that were previously triable only in the magistrates court can be sent to the Crown court. That means that a magistrate could send a case to the Crown court.
	I do not foresee loads of extra people going to prison. I expect the Bill to be used as a more effective deterrent, especially to directors and managers, whose influence on securing good health and safety practice is critical. Let us be clear: most health and safety breaches are not the fault of an individual director, but due to systemic failures. The idea that the Bill will mean directors queuing up to go to prison is not borne out by the facts.
	As I said, I welcome the excellent measure and I congratulate my hon. Friend again on promoting it. I believe that it will lead to a change in the behaviour of those few employers, landlords and businesses who have been guilty of flagrant disregard of health and safety legislation, leading our judges to demonstrate frustration in some cases. It will give judges the right tools to punish adequately the guilty landlord, employer and business. I commend it to the House.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on promoting the Bill and the excellent case that he made for it. I also congratulate all those involved in drafting the measure because it appears to be a good Bill.
	Canvey Island is in my constituency and I therefore have knowledge of control of major accident hazard—COMAH—industrial sites. My constituents have to live with the danger that the site represents. They want to know that I am in this place ensuring that they have the maximum protection and that the law enables judges to make proper decisions and thus deter people from taking safety short cuts on industrial sites. Indeed, my constituents are deeply concerned about industrial hazards, given the incidents at Flixborough and Buncefield, as well as accidents in the USA and Canada on sites similar to the one that is proposed for Canvey Island and the one that already operates there.
	My constituents want us to realise the vision of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party of being a caring party that does not simply have the knee-jerk reaction of protecting the interests of big business but takes account of the interests of the community and business employees. I am sure that Conservative Front Benchers want to do that.
	The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) made an excellent speech. I agree with him that we do not anticipate many more people being sent to prison. We want to give judges the ability, which they do not currently have but say that they want and need, to use prison as an ultimate deterrent so that people do not take short cuts but take a little more care to prevent the accidents that cause so much human suffering and loss, as well as loss of productivity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) made an excellent point when he said that prevention is much better than dealing with such matters in the courts after the event. Perhaps the opportunities for prevention would be better if the number of health and safety professionals had not fallen in the past three years by approximately 25 per cent. I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1320 on Health and Safety Executive job cuts, which points out the lack of resources being made available for maintaining health and safety for UK workers, and the fact that staff numbers have fallen from 4,282 in April 2004 to 3,225 in March 2007.

Angela Watkinson: I imagine that one of the hon. Gentleman's intentions is to bring the level of fines up to date. The range of circumstances in which offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 can be committed is very wide. I have been jotting down a selection, which I am sure is only a small selection of the potential list that could be covered. We need more in-depth scrutiny to examine all the potential circumstances, and the way in which the new level of fines and the opportunity for custodial sentencing could affect employers, Government Departments and the range of bodies which would be subject to the Bill.

Sadiq Khan: With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady has fundamentally misunderstood the Bill. The Bill does not widen the scope of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; it simply increases the tools at the disposal of the judge vis-à-vis sentences. Why does she believe that the Standing Committee procedure cannot scrutinise a three-clause Bill in the normal way?

Sadiq Khan: The point is that the landlords, employers and businesses would still be guilty of the same of offence as they would now, except that the tools at the disposal of the judge would be wider, so he or she could impose a heavier sentence. He or she could also decide not to impose a heavier sentence, because of the ignorance of the employer, landlord or business. The sentences are not mandatory; they are optional.

Angela Watkinson: The point that I am making concerns the need for greater understanding by everyone who might commit an offence under health and safety legislation as a result of ignorance or lack of attention to the detail of the regulations in their particular sphere. That is how accidents happen, and that is why employees' health and safety is worse than it should be. The level of awareness created by increased publicity and information will improve safety standards for employees by making them aware of the fact that fines, or the opportunities for custodial sentences, have increased. We all hope that that will make all those employers look in much greater detail at their responsibilities, and scrutinise them to make sure that they are put in place.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) mentioned the proportionality of fines and the severity of offences. Has he considered proportionality as it relates to the size of the organisation? In other words, how do multinationals and large companies deal with health safety regulations, and how do small employers employing two or three people tackle vexatious complaints made under health and safety provisions? A genuine accident occurs if someone trips or falls in an office, shop or small organisation. If the employer is found guilty and given a heavy fine, it could cause the organisation to close, so proportionality needs to be taken into account to prove intention.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman says that the process already happens. If it was already happening, and everything was working perfectly, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) would not have found it necessary to bring in the Bill to increase the penalties with the level of fines and threat of custodial sentence proposed. We would like every employee to be able to go to work every day knowing that their best interests were being cared for. We all know, however, that there are circumstance in which that is not the case.

Bob Spink: The Minister would not wish to be disingenuous, so I shall allow him to correct the record on my activities in the debate. He will recall that at the start I intervened on the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and explained why I had doubts about the Bill as drafted, although I support the intention to protect workers and provide greater deterrents. The reasons for my doubts included the provision of the same level of sanction for very serious offences as for much less serious offences, and I gave a couple of examples to support my view. I am sure the Minister will accept that explanation.